DeMbare strikers Chinyama, Mutuma full judgment

6
914

Dynamos strikers Takesure Chinyama and Roderick Mutuma were found guilty of charging at referee, Philani Ncube, in a violent manner after their 2-1 loss to Harare City, by the Premier Soccer League (PSL) disciplinary committee.

Online

Chinyama,-mutuma

Here is the full judgement made by the committee below;

Accused : 1. TAKESURE CHINYAMA (DYNAMOS FC)

2. RODRICK MUTUMA (DYNAMOS FC)

Dynamos Representative : Mr. W. CHIKENGEZHA (Secretary general)

Date of Hearing: 24 November 2015

Disciplinary Panel : VUSI VUMA (Chair) and DOREEN GAPARE

For the PSL : MS S. MAHLAMVANA (Prosecutor), MR E. MANDIREVA (Competitions Manager)

Witnesses in Attendance : Brighton Mudzamiri (Match Commissioner),

Philani Ncube (referee)

Charge : Contravening Order 31 of the Castle Lager PSL Rules

And Regulations – it is an act or misconduct on the part of a player who:

31.2.1. Directly or indirectly interrupts, obstructs or disturbs the normal proceedings of a game, before, during or after a match;

31.2.9 Assaults, threatens, intimidates, coerces, interferes or misleads or insults a match official, player, official of the league, public, press or media, or any other person, before, during or after the match;

31.2.17behaves in a manner, which brings the league or any of its sponsors into disrepute or endangers the welfare of the league;

The allegations being that on the 31st of October 2015 at the Chibuku Super Cup Final soccer match played at the National Sports Stadium between Dynamos FC and Harare City FC, the accused, Takesure Chinyama and Rodrick Mutuma „charged‟ at the match officials. The Assistant referees, security officials and police had to protect the referee and or match officials by restraining the accused.

Plea : Takesure Chinyama ; Not Guilty

Rodrick Mutuma : Not Guilty

Verdict : Takesure Chinyama : Guilty as charged

Rodrick Mutuma : Guilty as charged

Penalty : The accused players are hereby ordered to pay each a fine of $1 500-00 (One Thousand five hundred United States Dollars) US$500 -00 (five hundred United States Dollars) of which is suspended for the remainder of the season on condition the player is not convicted of any offense involving any general unsportsmanship conduct. The effective fine of US$1000-00 (One Thousand United States Dollars) together with costs of the hearing, is to be paid by the 31st of December 2015. The accused players are further each banned from participating in four (4) officially sanctioned matches by the PSL with immediate effect.

JUDGEMENT

The accused persons denied the charge. The 1st Accused Takesure Chinyama indicated in his defence that when the game ended he was „a distance away‟ from the referee; but on his way towards the referee he was intercepted by the police who grabbed him by the collar. He indicated that he then had an altercation with the police with regards to being grabbed by them. He further denied speaking to or uttering any words to the referee and he indicated that he only wanted to speak to the referee about the decisions the referee had made during the match. He stated that the video of the game would exonerate him from any wrong doing as it would show that he was far from the referee and that he was being restrained by the police and that the fourth official was the one that was close to him.

The 2nd accused, Rodrick Mutuma stated in his defence that after the game, he appeared at the scene and people were asking what had transpired and why the referee would make such decisions. It was at that time that the security team took them. He stated that the whole team was at the scene and that he had been about 15 to 20 meters away from the scene until he was taken by the security team. He also indicated that the video of the scene would exonerate him.

Mr Webster Chikengezha stated that, at the pre-match meeting, he had raised concerns about the referee whom he perceived to be biased against Dynamos. The match commissioner had however assured him that the referee would do his best to be fair. However the referee had betrayed the match commissioner as he was biased. He indicated that football is a game of emotions and it was unreasonable to expect players to keep quiet especially if they feel that the decision made by the referee is wrong “they will charge against the referee and this happens the world over”. He indicated that during their match with How mine fc, how mine players charged at the referee but they were not charged by PSL and that in their opinion there is „selective‟ prosecution of such type of offences. Suffice to say he does not deny that the players charged at the referee and that there were emotional and that the police had to attend the scene.

Mr Pilani Ncube, the Referee gave evidence to the effect that he saw both accused charge at him in a threatening manner when he had blown the whistle to end the game. Mutuma was more vocal and in the process abused him saying that “ murimabharanzi, that is why you were fired from Cosafa”, among other insulting words. Chinyama was busy shouting as well. Both accused were restrained by the Police and security details from both clubs. Had they not been restrained, “God knows what they could have done.” He said the video would show exactly what transpired. The match official Mr. Brighton Mudzamiri corroborated material aspects of the referee`s evidence. He said he observed both accused charge at the referee uttering unprintable words and making reference to their ineptitude hence being fired at Cosafa,“muri mabharanzi that’s why muchidzingwa ku COSAFA…” Mr Mudzamiri said he even cautioned Chinyama to cool down, which fact was acknowledged by Chinyama. The evidence of Mr Ncube and Mr Mudzamiri was credible. Their evidence was corroborated by the video evidence.

All the witnesses requested for video evidence and the PSL played the video. The video evidence was damning – it clearly showed the two accused „charging‟ or going towards the referee in a most aggressive manner. It showed that the 1st accused was at the scene shouting and pointing and indeed being restrained and the 2nd accused, contrary to his assertion that he was 15 to 20m away, is shown in the thick of things and also being restrained by the police. Both accused admitted being emotional and unhappy with the referee`s decisions. They admit they went towards the referee to question his decisions. Mr Chikengezha seemed to condone the player‟s behavior saying they were correct to charge at the referee because he was biased. He queried why How mine players were not charged for charging at the referee, accusing PSL of bias. The evidence against the accused was so overwhelming. Mutuma even went to use derogatory words against the referee during the proceedings. The evidence

against the accused was so overwhelming. It is clear that they thought they would get away with it since in their opinion How Mine FC players had done the same in their match with them. It is not our responsibility to charge offending parties. Dynamos should have raised any misconduct on the part of How mine fc to the relevant authorities and not to misbehave on the pretext that others were allowed that latitude before. You can`t condone misconduct on the basis that you saw someone misbehaving as well. As such, we find both accused guilty of abusive language and unsporting behavior.

Reasons for Sentence

In arriving at the appropriate sentence we have taken into account the fact that there is a need to ensure that players are deterred from acting on their emotions. The behaviour displayed on the video is quite threatening – someone charging at the referee in that manner can only lead one to think that they may act on their emotions and possibly assault the official. A threat of violence is indeed violence. There is need, therefore, to send a very strong message to deter such minded people. They could have easily incited public violence had it not been for the swift response of the Police and security details of both clubs. We applaud them for their swift action. The derogatory words were uncalled for. The accused did not show any remorse whatsoever, especially Mutuma. The accused defences were frivolous and without merit and contrary to what was explicit in the video. These are seasoned players who should lead by example. It is also worrying that an official would seem to condone such behavior on the basis that the referee was biased. As such, a deterrent sentence is therefore appropriate to stem out such conduct once and for all.

6 COMMENTS

  1. The sentence still is not deterrent enough. Its a light sentence and in future, mark my words they are gonna do it again knowing very well that nothing can happen to them. The dynamos secretary general, is also to blame for inciting the players.

    • my Aunty Brianna just got a great Lexus IS F Sedan just by some parttime working online with a macbook…

      ➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧➧w­­w­­w­­.­­P­­r­­­o­­­f­­­i­­­t­­­­7­­­­­0­­.­­­­­­C­­­­­O­­­M­

  2. You might c this as a detterant bt fact is for the foreseable future such behaviours will still remain prevelant because the match officials are a biased and a cheating lot. They officiate games with an objective to suit their purposes and advance their intrests no matter the concequences on fifa fair play!!

Comments are closed.